Circumcision in Law

1. Brain-damage in Alaska

AWashington couple has finally won justice for their son, 13 years after he was left brain-damaged after his circumcision.

When Jacob Sweet was born at Providence Hospital in Anchorage,
Alaska, in January 1986, it was a dream come true for his parents. But
Beverly and Gary Sweet's dream took a nightmarish turn only nine days
later when they took him back to the hospital for treatment of an
infected circumcision and the hospital returned a severely
brain-damaged and blind child. The nightmare continued for 13 years -
but a major settlement was announced today between the family, now of
Bothell, Washington, and the Alaska law firm that handled the Sweet's
medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the pediatrician
who treated Jacob.

The Sweets were twice forced to fight for their son in court. First,
they sought justice from the hospital and doctor who they allege caused
Jacob's injuries, and who then "lost" the medical records critical to
proving their case. Then, after Alaska lawyer Alan Sherry mishandled
that case, they were forced to resort to the courts again.

Seattle attorney Mark Johnson represented the Sweets in the second
suit, for legal malpractice, arguing that Sherry had misrepresented
himself as a seasoned malpractice lawyer and then failed to argue their
case properly.

"This has been tragedy at every turn for this family," Johnson said.
"First the healthcare system devastated their child. Then, when they
most needed an aggressive, experienced and competent lawyer, an
attorney with no malpractice experience misled them and failed to
properly [argue] the case. That cost them their opportunity to recover
damages from the hospital and the pediatrician."

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

The Sweet's tragedy started on January 25, 1986, in Anchorage,
Alaska, when they brought nine-day-old Jacob back to Providence
Hospital after he exhibited signs of an infected circumcision. [Actually, their tragedy began when they were given the advice that convinced them to agree to have him circumcised. HY]
Jacob was admitted to the pediatric ward and had seizures for 24 hours,
but their pediatrician, Dr. Daniel Tulip, was absent most of that time
and failed to refer Jacob to a neonatologist until after he had
suffered brain damage that would leave him physically devastated,
developmentally delayed, and utterly dependent for the rest of his life.

[At that trial, Dr Thomas Wiswell,
an expert witness for the defendants, argued that Jacob's brain damage
could not have resulted from his circumcision, but was probably caused
by an unknown virus.]

Injustice compounded

The Sweet's calamity compounded when the Alaska law firm they hired
to try their medical malpractice suit improperly handled the case.
Jacob's medical records disappeared shortly after his time in the
hospital, suggesting that someone had tried to cover up a negligent
act. Sweet's first legal team failed to present this evidence properly.
The Sweets lost the suit, and with it, any hope of recovering damages
from the hospital.

With mounting medical bills, they hired Mark Johnson to represent
them in an action for legal negligence. Legal malpractice cases are
difficult to prove, because the plaintiff must not only prove the
defendant attorney was negligent, but that the client would have won
the case if the attorney had acted differently.

The amount awarded to the Sweets is confidential as part of the settlement agreement.

"This brings some peace of mind to our lives, although we are still
convinced that Jacob's doctor and the hospital have never told the truth,"
said Beverly Sweet. "At least now we can provide for Jacob's medical care
and future."

Jacob Sweet lived with severe disability and died on September 16, 2012

2. Damages in Western Australia

The Sunday Times, PerthSunday, December 26, 1999

Botched circumcision leads to $360,000 in damages:The cruel cut that
ruined a man's life

By Bruce Butler

A PERTH man has won a $360,000 [$US232,663] damages payout after a
WA doctor admitted he botched a circumcision operation which left the
man with a badly deformed penis.

The man, 26, who was operated on at birth, has never had sexual
intercourse.

Due to a lack of information on neonatal circumcision, he grew up
believing he was deformed. He was unable to obtain an erection until he
had corrective surgery at the age of 18.

The man, who wants to be known only as "John", [now speaking in his real name, Shane Peterson] said he has a permanent
lack of sensation in his penis but also has suffered extreme pain.

Shane Peterson

He suffered severe psychological problems from his late teens which led
to an attempted suicide at 18, six months after partially successful
reconstructive surgery.

In January 1992 when his injuries were diagnosed as a bungled
circumcision, he turned against his parents, hating them for allowing
the awful operation to be done.

In 1997 he sued the G[eneral]P[ractitioner] who circumcised him.

This month John received an out-of-court settlement after the doctor
admitted liability for the injuries and agreed to the payout.

His lawyer Hayden Stephens, from the law firm Slater and Gordon, said
the payout was one of the biggest in Australia for that type of injury.

"This young man has suffered a horrific consequence as a result of this
negligent procedure and he now has to live with the problem for the rest
of his life," Mr Stephens said.

"I am really pleased for him, but no amount of money will ever truly
compensate him for the injuries he has suffered."

Now completing a doctorate in medical science, John said he took legal
action in a bid to draw attention to circumcision and to try to
eradicate it in Australia, if not the world.

He said circumcision was a disgusting, unnecessary act of mutilation
which the medical profession had forced on unsuspecting parents for
years.

"For my whole life I've been imprisoned in pain and exiled from
pleasure. I'm serving a prison sentence for a crime that someone else
committed - that's the reality for me," he said.

In John's operation, still routinely performed without anaesthetic in
Australian hospitals, almost all of the penile skin was removed which
prevented the penis from growing normally.

John said: "Parents want to see their children grow up to live healthy
and happy lives and many parents have consented to circumcision because
the Australian medical profession convinced them that it was a quick and
painless procedure that was essential to avoid health problems.

"Not only is the claim that it is beneficial wrong, the AMA has not
adequately informed parents of the surgical risks involved.

"I tool legal action against the doctor who circumcised me because I
hate circumcision and I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did
nothing to stop other babies being injured and mutilated in the same way
as me.

"I don't want to walk down the street and see a young mother with baby
boys and wonder and worry whether they've had done to them what was done
to me."

Born in 1973, John's "routine" operation became a nightmare he had had
to cope with all his life.

The young GP who delivered him cut way far too much skin and had to
stretch the remaining soft, scrotal tissue and stitch it in place.

The result was a mess.

"The shape isn't right, the length isn't right - it's shorter than it
should be - and the glans (head) is actually twisted a bit," John said.

Believing he was deformed, he hid from embarrassing change-room and
shower situations at school.

Throughout adolescence - difficult enough years when all is well - the
psychological harm matched his physical scars.

He was more interested in science than sport and became withdrawn and
studious.

He prospered academically by pscyhologically was crying out for help.

When he went to university, he realised he had a serious problem and the
bungled circumcision was diagnosed.

He fought severe depression and contemplated suicide but opted for
surgery, hoping it would save him.

"The pain involved in that was horrific and it lasted for years and
still now I get aches and pains from time to time," he said.

"With all the pain, the psychological trauma and embarrassment that went
with having that surgery, it wasn't worth it.

"But I was 18 years old, I had something very badly wrong with me and I
was desperate.
"I had to try something."

Skin was taken from his upper thighs and grafted to his penis, but he
was left with little real sensation.

The grafted skin had unsightly leg hairs growing from it, which required
further electrolysis and caused further scarring.

He remains angry that he was circumcised unnecessarily and that the
medical profession continues to push the operation on unknowing parents.
He is outraged that 12 per cent of Australian boys are still
circumcised.

"Babies should never be circumcised," he said.

"My case was a totally unnecessary circumcision. Yet my mother and
father were told it was essential for me to be circumcised to avoid
health problems."

John said that some medical authorities still claimed circumcision
reduced the rate of HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases - a
claim he says has been proven wrong by medical data.

He said it was wrong that doctors, who charged about $200 to perform a
circumcision, continue to make a small fortune from such a potentially
harmful procedure.

"I have been assaulted and mutilated and for my whole life I am living
with an injury," he said.

John said his injuries made it almost impossible to contemplate a
relationship with a woman and he found it hard to make friends.

He was angry with his parents but he now acknowledged that the operation was not their fault.

His mother, a close and loving supporter who carries her own guilt over
the surgery, said: "He's never had a relationship with a woman because
of how he feels about his body.

"At the most important stage of his life when he should have been dating
and girls were showing an interest in him, he withdrew".

She said they should have been told how to clean a boy's foreskin, not
advised to have a circumcision.

His mother also regretted the blunder was not diagnosed earlier so that
he could have corrective surgery at a younger age.

John said he would like to see a support group established in Australia
for men who have problems due to circumcision.

A three-year-old boy died when a doctor was performing a circumcision
on him. The boy is believed to have died from a dose of the anaesthetic
Ketogan that was five times too strong, says Radio Stockholm.

A three-year-old boy in Stockholm was at the
doctor's to be circumcised in August 1999. A few hours after the
procedure the boy was dead. "Today I have charged a doctor with
involuntary manslaughter because I think that the investigation shows
that the doctor gave the little boy too much anaesthetic," district
attorney Eva Regner told Radio Stockholm.

Five times too strong a doseThe
drug was a dose of the anaesthetic Ketogan five times too strong. A few
hours after the procedure the boy became inert and had trouble
breathing, and later the same day he died on the way to hospital. The
licensed practitioner was authorised to perform the circumcision and
had performed several before. Now the doctor is charged with
involuntary manslaughter by district attorney Eva Regner.

"The reason was carelessness""It's
my opinion that the investigation shows that this happened out of
carelessness. That is, he has made a mistake about the strength of this
anaestetic," Eva Regner told Radio Stockholm. In December last year
Ingela Thalén, secretary of social security, proposed that whoever
performs circumcisions must either be a doctor or have a special
education and license. Such licenses could then be given, for example,
to Jewish rabbis and Moslem imams. According to the proposal both
parents must agree, and the boy must also give his consent, if he is
old enough to understand what it's all about.

"The dose was not too strong"According
to Radio Stockholm the doctor has raised objections to the
investigation into the death of the boy, and to the conclusions drawn.
He does not think that the dose was too strong. The district court in
Stockholm is expected to try the case during the [Northern] spring.

the loss of highly erogenous sexual tissue which also serves important protective functions;

the loss of bodily integrity;

traumatic and often highly painful disfigurement;

complications including death and the loss of the entire penis;64 and

the impermissibility of any mutilation of children's genitals performed with neither their consent nor medical justification.

No national or international medical association in the modern
industrialised world, or indeed anywhere in the world, endorses routine
circumcision of healthy boys.

Several human rights documents tacitly forbid enforced infant
circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision of unconsenting minors
amounts to culturally sanctioned physical and sexual abuse. No basis in
international human rights law or domestic law justifies the
discriminatory prohibition of only female genital mutilation.

"Ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic and is not warranted or
justified by medical evidence. This form of mutilation should not be
legally distinguished from female circumcision ... presently being
prohibited throughout Australia and the Western world. As ritual male
circumcision is non-therapeutic, may be against public policy, and
clearly is not in the best interests of the child, a parent's consent
may be vitiated, leaving persons involved in the procedure liable in
negligence, notwithstanding parental religious beliefs."65

Non-therapeutic, invasive and irreversible major surgery, especially
sexual reduction surgery on unconsenting minors, is unethical. The
standard of care for infrequent events such as infections is
antibiotics, not amputation. Circumcision of healthy male minors is
useless and traumatic, causing severe and lasting harm physically,
sexually and often psychologically. As medical ethicist Margaret
Somerville pointed out:

"Moreover, neonatal circumcision is done without
consent of the subject, removes healthy tissue with unique anatomical
structure and function, and leads to differences in adult sexual
behaviour... We need, therefore, to address the issue directly and end
the persistent efforts to find a medical rationale for circumcision by
removing the cloak of medicine from this procedure.66"

Enforced non-therapeutic genital cutting of unconsenting minors is
overdue for recognition by the legal community as sexual mutilation. As
we enter the 21st century, appropriate legal action must be taken to
safeguard the physical genital integrity of male children.

A Fargo couple want North Dakota’s ban on female genital
mutilation ruled unconstitutional because it doesn’t protect infant
boys from being circumcised.

James and Anita Flatt also contend a doctor at Fargo’s
MeritCare Hospital failed to inform them on the risks and benefits of
the procedure before circumcising their newborn son in 1997, according
to a lawsuit the Flatts filed in Cass County District Court Thursday
against the hospital and the state.

The Flatts say they would not have consented to the
circumcision if they were property informed. And if the North Dakota
law against female genital mutilation was gender-neutral, then the
procedure wouldn’t have been legal, the lawsuit contends.

The Flatts’ lawyer, Zenas Baer, said circumcision is medically
unnecessary and compared the female genital mutilation law to one that
said only “it is a crime to abuse your female children.”

“That would be ruled unconstitutional within a heartbeat,” he said.

MeritCare spokeswoman Carrie Johnson said hospital officials
hadn’t received the lawsuit at the end of the day Thursday and couldn’t
respond until they reviewed it.

The Flatts’ son was born early March 6, 1997. That evening, a
nurse asked Anita Flatt to sign a consent form for circumcision but
didn’t describe the benefits or risks of the procedure, according to
the lawsuit. And Flatt was “still in great pain and on medication for
the pain” when asked to sign, the lawsuit states.

The next day, Dr. Sunita Kantak spoke briefly with Flatt but
didn’t discuss the benefits, risks or potential complications, the
lawsuit contends. Baer said James Flatt never was consulted.

According to one estimate, 60 percent of male infants are
circumcised in the United States. In North Dakota, the rate is
estimated between 80 percent and 90 percent, the lawsuit states.

In March, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy
statement that said the benefits of circumcision are not significant
enough for the academy to recommend it as a routine procedure.

In light of cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, however,
the academy said parents should be given complete information about the
potential benefits so they can make an informed choice.

In 1996, a federal judge threw out a similar lawsuit Baer filed
in U.S. District Court, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the dismissal.

Baer said the case filed Thursday differs from the earlier case
because it aks for monetary compensation for the procedure performed on
the boy, where the federal lawsuit only wanted a ruling against the
state law.

“Whether the result will be any different, I can’t guarantee that,” he said.

Baer compared circumcision legislature with lawsuits that were
repeatedly filed - and dismissed - before judges started ruling against
civil-rights violations.

“Many times these cases are filed and thrown out by the courts,
but not until there is an education process do the courts catch on,” he
said.

Even if the female genital mutilation law isn’t rewritten to
include boys, Baer said the lawsuit may change how doctors handle
circumcisions in the state.

“The effect of it may be to raise the bar for the medical
profession to tell more about the effects of circumcision on the baby
boy,” he said. “And that’s a step in the right direction.”

The judge will hear arguments on April 13, 2000 on the State's
motion
to dismiss the State as a defendant on the ground that Josiah Flatt
(the infant) suffered no injury fairly related to the unconstitutional
statute.

The two claims are totally severable, so a dismissal of the constitutional claim would not impair the informed consent issue.

Circumcision to enable catheterisation is unknown in
non-circumcising regions of the world, such as Europe. Doctors and
nurses are taught to retract the foreskin enough to sight the meatus and insert the catheter, then to bring it forward again.

Underlying this story is the contempt in which the
doctors held the man's foreskin, and their total failure to appreciate
that he might enjoy having it.

The father had, according to the prosecution, advised doctors that the
mother also gave her consent to the operation. The prosecuter writes also
that the circumcision involved pain and soreness for the boy.

The parents are divorced and the
three-year-old boy lives with his mother. When during a period of
several weeks he lived with his father, the father had a doctor visit
the home. There the circumcision was performed, on bedding upon the
kitcken table.

The operation was according to the doctor, who works at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, done with local anaesethic.

(TT)

(TT - Swedish national news agency)

8. United States law already criminalizes female genital mutilation:

18 United States Code Section 116:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is:

(1) Necessary to the health of the person on whom it is
performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its
performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) Performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is
performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a
person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner,
midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or
midwife.
(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

Since 1994, 16 states have passed legislation relating to Female
Genital Cutting. In general, the statutes address it in a manner
similar to that of
the federal law, by prohibiting its practice and instituting criminal
sanctions.

Minnesota, Rhode Island and Tennessee prohibit the practice of FGM on adult women as well as on females under the age of 18.

The statutes enacted in California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Oregon and West Virginia explicitly address the conduct of a parent or guardian who permits or allows FGM to be performed on her or his daughter.

In Nevada, a person may be prosecuted for the removal of a child from that state for the purpose of performing FGM.

California, Colorado, Minnesota, New
York, and Oregon have enacted legislation addressing the need for culturally sensitive education and outreach to the relevant communities.

The circumcision of boys without medical reason should
eventually be banned in Sweden. So says the Children's Ombudsman (BO),
who on Wednesday submitted her response to the Government's
working-paper (with suggested law) on the circumcision of boys.

The principle underpinning the law-proposal is that
the child's best interest should be the determining factor in deciding
whether a circumcision is to be performed or not permitted. The
government's law-proposal also suggests that only people holding
special permits from the National Board of Health and Welfare - except
personnel of the health care system - be allowed to perform the
operation.

Dallas,Texas, June 30, 2000:
A suit was settled this week for $23,000, against a Dallas obstetrician
for wrongful circumcision . The victim’s parents, Charlie Hardy and
Randi Harlan say they also endured indignities from Texas medical and
government personnel during their nearly three year long legal battle.

The Texas Medical Board issued Dr. Roosevelt Taylor a public
reprimand - his second - on May 19, 2000 for "failure to practice
medicine in an acceptable manner."

In September 1997, Hardy and Harlan advised Dr. Taylor that their other children were not circumcised because
they felt that circumcision was barbaric and harmful to an infant. On
September 26, 1997, when Mrs. Harlan was admitted to Tri-City Hospital in
Dallas for delivery, she told the staff that there was to be no
circumcision. To prevent an accidental circumcision, the attending nurse
threw the circumcision consent form into a nearby trashcan.

Two days after their son’s birth, Hardy and Harlan were stunned
when their newborn son was brought to them from the hospital nursery
crying and
bleeding, and were horrified when they learned that he had just been
circumcised by Dr. Taylor. "We were hysterical," recalls Randi, "But
when
Dr. Taylor stopped by the room his only comment was ‘It’s not the end
of
the world.’ I mean he’s never even apologized to us." The couple
believes
Dr. Taylor circumcised their son intentionally in spite of their strong
feelings against it.

"How could this have even been a mistake? There was
only one other baby with our son in the nursery at the time, we definitely
did not sign a consent form, and we specifically told Dr. Taylor that there
was to be no circumcision," Charlie Hardy stresses. "We were totally
betrayed by our own doctor."

Dr. Taylor’s lack of concern was replayed in the responses Hardy
and Harlan received from successive medical and government personnel as
they tried to find justice for their newborn child. An attempt to file
a police report was met with an amused reaction on behalf of the Dallas
police who then advised the couple that a wrongful surgery "was not a
criminal matter". The Dallas County District Attorney’s office
explained to the couple that a
public case was not "worth their time".

The couple sought assistance from the state’s attorney general,
the federal attorney general’s office, and even the Texas Governer’s
office, but,
according to the couple, "We were just laughed at, every step of the
way."

The issue of Medicaid fraud also didn’t seem to concern state
officials.
Hardy and Harlan contacted the Medicaid fraud hotline to report
Dr. Taylor for charging the surgery. "We were told that performing this
surgery without consent does not constitute fraud. We can’t believe
this doctor made money for performing a surgery we were against, and
then the taxpayers had to pay for it," says Hardy.

Despite the out-of court settlement, Hardy and Harlan believe
that justice
wasn’t served. "Dr. Taylor has done this twice now." In 1991 he was
publicly reprimanded by the Texas Medical Board for performing surgery
without consent. "He’s still out there practicing like what he did was
no problem. If the doctor had carved his initials in our son’s stomach,
he would not be allowed to practice medicine. But since he cut off our
son’s foreskin against our
wishes, people think it is funny and all the doctor gets is a slap on
the
wrist. I wonder how many other families this has happened to, but they
gave up the fight after being laughed at and receiving no support?"

11. "Contrary to Canadian law"

Infant Male Circumcision: A Violation of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms

by Arif Mohamed Bhimji, MD

...

CONCLUSION
Circumcision of male infants is a clear violation of the rights guaranteed to all persons by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the practice contravenes human
rights legislation on provincial and international levels.

It is a fundamental principle of international law, as well as the mark of every civilized
community, that discrimination is unlawful. Interpretations of human rights law that
recognize FGM but not MGM as violations infringe on equal protection principles
enshrined in national and international law. Female circumcision is, rightly, a criminal
offence in almost every country even when “religious duty” is claimed; there can be no
justification for not extending the same protection to boys. All forms of sexual cutting of
children are profoundly damaging, whether male or female. To suggest that only female
circumcision be regarded as in breach of the various conventions on human rights denies the
medical evidence as to the pain, risks and sexual dysfunction from infant male circumcision.
It argues for the formalization of discrimination against these male children on the grounds
of their sex, race and the religious beliefs of the family into which they are born. Human
rights principles are absolute, not subject to balancing in the scales of international justice
relative to other violations.

The presence of and tolerance for infant male circumcision in our societies harms us all.
Male infants need our protection from unnecessary surgery. To contemplate a ban on non-ritual,
non-therapeutic circumcision, while allowing ritual circumcision, would be a
prohibited discrimination against a group of boys on the grounds of their parents’ religion.
These infants will always have the choice to be circumcised later in life, if they so choose to
do as a sign of their faith. At that point, at least, it is their own decision and not one that has
been imposed irreversibly upon them.

Male genital mutilation (MGM), including circumcision, is much more of an issue in Canada
than FGM, whose proponents and victims are found mostly abroad. For that reason, MGM
deserves at least as much attention as FGM from Canadian authorities. It is difficult to
conceive that the amputation of healthy, fully functional erogenous tissue without consent
does not violate the most basic of human rights.

Canadians proudly point to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the primary instrument
for protecting their rights. The evidence is clear: infant male circumcision for anything other
than real medical necessity violates both the Charter and the Criminal Code. As Canadians
we have an obligation to rectify this injustice.

ØØØØ

The entire article, 103KB long, may be downloaded as a *.pdf file from HealthcareLaw to be read with eg Acrobat Reader.

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK An 18- year-old filed suit Tuesday in
the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, against the
physician that
circumcised him as a newborn and the hospital where he was circumcised.

William Stowell

Plaintiff
William G. Stowell, born on December 22, 1981 at Good Samaritan
Hospital in West Islip, NY, was circumcised the following day by his
mother’s obstetrician, Frank P. Cariello, MD. Mr. Stowell recalls being
at camp at
the age of 14 and noticing that another boy had a foreskin. 'I wanted
to
know why he had one and I didn’t and, more importantly," says Stowell,
“where mine was. Shortly afterwards I formed the opinion that the whole
procedure and idea of circumcision were wrong. I came to believe I
deserve compensation from the person who scarred and damaged me
permanently, and from the hospital where this damage was allowed to
occur."

According to J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director, Attorneys
for the Rights of the Child, "This case highlights the travesty of
infant circumcision,
which seriously breaches the child’s right to bodily integrity and is
incompatible with the doctor’s legal and ethical duties toward the
child
patient. Circumcising a child without medical necessity is criminal
assault. All physicians and hospitals that currently circumcise males
without medical justification would be wise to reconsider this
practice."

This landmark case brings into question whether a physician can
remove healthy, normal tissue from unconsenting minors for
non-therapeutic reasons, and whether a parent can legally consent to a
medically contraindicated surgery for a minor child. The American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first
acknowledged that there was no medical justification for routine
circumcision in 1971. Last year, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not
recommend routine circumcision. The American Medical Association
concurred
this year, calling routine circumcision 'non-therapeutic'. No national
or
international medical organization recommends routine circumcision. The
United States is the only country that continues to circumcise the
majority
of its newborns for non-religious reasons. As parents have become more
educated about the surgery, the circumcision rate in the US, from data
supplied by HCIA-Sachs, has fallen to 57%.

- X X X -

"Mr. Stowell is represented by John L. Juliano of East Northport, NY and
David J. Llewellyn of Conyers, Georgia. Mr. Llewellyn regularly represents
the victims of circumcision throughout the country." David Llewellyn, the
plaintiff’s attorney, can be reached at 1-770-918-1911.

J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the
Child, can be reached at 1-510-595-5550.

14. "He doesn't need this procedure"

Father fights to stop son's circumcision

The father of a 3-year-old Las Vegas boy is seeking a court order to
prevent his ex-wife from having the boy circumcised.

"It's my son. It's highly emotional, and I truly believe in my heart -- I
have a clear mind that he doesn't need this procedure," said the boy's
father, Henry Corvera.

Corvera, a native of Bolivia who lives in St. Louis, said his ex-wife,
Laura Latimer, told him several months ago that the boy's doctor had
recommended circumcision.

Latimer wanted to go ahead with the procedure, but Corvera objected. He
said he decided to go to court after she refused to discuss the issue
further.

"I believe she thinks she's doing the right thing, but I believe it's not
medically necessary," Corvera said.

He talked about the matter at length last week after a closed-door hearing
in Family Court Judge Bob Lueck's courtroom.

Latimer, who has primary physical custody of the couple's son, declined to
be interviewed for this story. Latimer and Corvera have joint legal
custody of the boy.

In a letter written in mid-November to both parties' attorneys, Lueck
indicated he would order the circumcision. But after last week's hearing,
the judge said he wanted to review more records before making a final
decision.

Lueck's November letter was based on an independent examination
performed
by Dr. Sheldon Freedman, a Las Vegas urologist.

Freedman concluded that the child had a medical condition that would be
best treated with circumcision, which involves the removal of all or part
of the foreskin of a penis.

"I am very well aware of the controversy regarding circumcision, and I
openly acknowledge that the foreskin does have function both in
protection, lubrication and sensation," the urologist wrote in a letter to
the judge. "In this case, however, the foreskin has a true medical
disease, and in my opinion, this is best treated with circumcision."

Corvera questions those findings. He said he has medical experts of his
own who have concluded that his son's penis is normal and needs no
corrective surgery.

"You don't mutilate a body part just because," Corvera said.

He requested an evidentiary hearing -- at which experts on both sides of
the case could testify and face cross-examination -- but Lueck denied the
request.

Corvera said he and Latimer were married in 1992 in Rhode Island. Their
son was born in August 1997 in Las Vegas, and they opted against
circumcision.

"There was an argument at the time, but I imposed my view," Corvera said.

Corvera, 37, is not circumcised and said the procedure is not a common
practice in his homeland "or, for that matter, in most of the world."

Statistics show that about 61 percent of male infants in the United States
were circumcised in 1999.

Circumcisions in this country have dropped significantly since the 1960s
as research has raised questions about the procedure's medical benefits.

"It is such a strange subject," Corvera said. "Nobody talks about it."

Corvera has studied the issue extensively and has accumulated a file full
of related information.

He also has conversed with Jim Price, the father of a 3-year-old New
Jersey boy who is fighting a similar battle with his estranged wife. Price
has appeared on Howard Stern's radio talk show and urged Corvera to take
his story to the press.

Corvera said he fears his child will suffer psychological damage from
being circumcised at this age.

And because of the boy's age, Corvera said, he should be given general
anesthesia. Corvera said surgery and anesthesia carry risks of physical
injury or death.

In addition, Corvera said he has acquired information indicating
circumcision diminishes a man's sexual pleasure. He said most American
men
don't discuss this possibility.

"Because they've been clipped, they don't know the difference," he said.

Corvera said both he and Latimer moved to St. Louis after the birth of
their son, but they separated six months later, and Latimer returned to
Las Vegas.

The couple were divorced in 1998, and Corvera said they never fought over
custody.

"I thought she would be a good mother, and I won't take the child away
from her by any means," he said.

Corvera said he flies to Las Vegas once a month to spend three days with
his son. He also pays $775 a month for child support, $240 a month to his
son's private preschool, and half of the boy's medical expenses.

"Nobody can accuse me of being a deadbeat father," Corvera said.

He estimated he has spent about $12,000 on legal fees to fight his
ex-wife's plans to circumcise their son and that he would spend another
$30,000 if Lueck allows an evidentiary hearing.

"I'm not crazy. I'm not happy about spending that kind of money, but he's
my son," Corvera said.

He also vowed to sue any doctor who performs a circumcision on the boy
and
said he will encourage his son to do the same when he becomes an adult.

"I'm going to get in debt, but my son will know I fought for him," Corvera
said.

Description: Medical malpractice -
Negligent performance of circumcision on a newborn baby whose penis was
injured. Troy Gordon was born, jaundiced and hypoglycemic on January
19, 1994, at the University of California at Davis. The circumcision
was performed by a resident and the Plaintiffs claimed that an
excessive amount of foreskin was removed in the procedure. As a result,
the child has a "buried penis".

The defense took the position that the condition created by the surgical error would correct itself during puberty.

The Swedish government recently decided on a law to protect boys
from botched circumcisions. But the law contravenes basic legal
principles and may result in prosecutions of doctors who circumcise
boys. "Sweden should introduce legislation prohibiting male and
female circumcision equally," says Stefan Ivarsson, a lawyer and a
member of the international group Attorneys for the Rights of the
Child, a human rights organization recognized by the UN. This group
is based in the USA and most of its members are from the English-
speaking world, though even Jews and Muslims are included.

"We are opposed to both female and male circumcision. But it's
harder to convince the drafters of the legislation that male
circumcision is also a mutilation," says Stefan Ivarsson. Ever since the
commission was appointed to draft the new circumcision law, he has been
trying to gain the support of administrators and politicians. So far
without success. "The commission is bad. It takes no account of the
principles involved or of current research on male circumcision. The
prevailing opinion among experts today is that male circumcision offers no
medical advantage."

Quite the contrary; the operation violates the Hippocratic Oath never to
cause harm. Male circumcision destroys healthy tissue which can never be
replaced, and causes lifelong sexual and psychological problems. "It's a
violation of a child's bodily integrity," says Stefan Ivarsson. "Besides,
the operation itself requires a subject (victim?). Operations are never
completely risk-free. Things go wrong and boys die as a result of
circumcision, even in Sweden and even when the operation is properly
performed. Such an outcome is unacceptable for an unnecessary medical
intervention." Stefan Ivarsson himself was circumcised against his will.
His father was English and was following a long British tradition. "My own
experience motivates me to work against circumcision and serves as a
strong argument against those who accuse me of antisemitism. But the most
important consideration for me is that male circumcision is a human rights
violation."

Stefan Ivarsson believes that the arguments against the new Swedish
circumcision law are strong. He relies on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European
Convention on Human Rights, the Swedish law against FGM, and laws and
principles prohibiting discrimination. No one can exercise a right in such
a way that it violates someone else's rights. Thus the right to bodily
integrity takes precedence over religious freedom. The Convention on the
Rights of the Child clearly states that a child is a separate person with
the same rights as other persons. When the government in the text of the
law defends the right to religious freedom, they are talking about the
parents' right to religious freedom, not that of the child. We can't
assume that a child will follow in the footsteps of his parents with
respect to religious affiliation, any more than he will follow their
politics or occupation.

A religious upbringing does not give parents the right to mark their
children with their own religious convictions, comments Stefan Ivarsson.
He reminds us that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot get permission to deny their
children blood transfusions, even though transfusions are prohibited by
their religion. In case of refusal, society has the right to take
temporary custody of the child. The same thing applies to girls at risk
for FGM.

Stefan Ivarsson maintains that the same reasoning the government
uses to criminalize FGM-ritual practice that destroys an essential
body part-must also be applied to male circumcision/mutilation. The
differential treatment should be regarded as discrimination on the
basis of sex, as well as on grounds of (accident of) birth and religion.
"When we pass a law protecting the physical integrity of girls we can't
exclude boys. All children regardless of sex, religion, race, skin colour,
or any other accident of birth have the same right to legal protection."

Boys and girls are born with intact sex organs.
They have no need to prove that they should remain uncircumcised. The
burden of proof is on those who want to perform the operation, and
children must, says Stefan Ivarsson, be protected until circumcision is
shown to be harmless and legal. He doesn't think Sweden can allow male
circumcision without violating basic legal
principles and human rights. "The current law in Sweden already
prohibits
circumcision of boys and girls, and it's time to start thinking about
the victims," says Stefan Ivarsson. He himself intends to test the
legal
provisions he refers to by suing the government for his own
circumcision
at the Karolinska hospital in 1968.

21. $80,000 for lack of consent

Quincy Medical Center and an obstetrician have agreed to pay more than
$80,000 to a boy who was circumcised and whose parents say the procedure
was carried out against their wishes.

The parents told the hospital in August 1997 that they did not want their
son circumcised, according to a malpractice suit filed by the parents.
Nevertheless, Dr. Sandra Chenkin performed the procedure the day after he
was born, court papers said.

Medical insurance experts said the case was unusual because it was
based on lack of consent rather than negligence, the usual grounds for a
malpractice claim.

There were no complications from the surgery, in which a doctor removes a
sheath of skin covering the tip [no, the glans, the foreskin is the tip] of the penis.

Quincy Medical Center spokeswoman Karen Schwartzman said the
incident occurred because a hospital policy requiring written consent for
circumcisions “was not adhered to.”

Parents were supposed to be asked to sign [...but they should be asked whether they would sign...] a consent form after childbirth
for the circumcision procedure, “along with a number of other forms that
get filled out at the same time,” Schwartzman said.

In this case, “regrettably the consent form was not filled out,” she said. [No, what is regrettable is that the non-signing was overlooked and the boy was circumcised.]

Schwartzman said she had no information about conversations between
the parents and the medical center before the birth. [This is irrelevant since the form was not signed.]

“Medical errors happen, and all too frequently,” she said. “Quincy Medical
Center is not immune, but it is a problem at all hospitals.”

Schwartzman added patients should judge a hospital by its “whole picture”
rather than “one incident two and a half years ago.”

The hospital closed its maternity unit in November 1998 because of
financial reasons.

Chenkin practices in Brockton. Her lawyer did not return telephone calls.

Papers filed at Norfolk Superior Court contain the names of the parents
and child. The Patriot Ledger is not publishing the names to protect the
family’s privacy.

The case was settled Aug. 30, a little more than one month after the
parents sued. The parents and their lawyer agreed to keep the terms of the
settlement secret, not disclosing where the case had been filed and who
had been sued. The Patriot Ledger obtained the court papers independently.
The lawyer for the parents and child said he could not comment because of
the settlement agreement.

Under terms of the settlement, the parents received $14,418 in August and
their lawyer was paid $20,000. The child will collect four annual payments
of $20,588 starting on his 18th birthday, for a total of $82,352, the
agreement said.

The payments to parents, child and attorney total $116,770. However,
Chenkin’s insurer, which paid the settlement, laid out only $60,000 in
cash: the immediate payments to the parents and their lawyer, plus a
$25,352 annuity to cover the future payments, the court papers said.

Until about 10 years ago, circumcision was considered a routine procedure
for newborn boys and few parents or doctors questioned it.

Muslims and Jews practice circumcision as part of their religions. The
practice has gone beyond religious boundaries to become almost universal
[a gross exaggeration] in the United States. The parents who sued Quincy Medical Center claimed
circumcision was against their religious beliefs. ["Claimed"? As if they didn't know what their own religious beliefs are?]

In recent years, evidence has mounted that circumcision is unnecessary and
can present risks, like any surgery.

In March 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics withdrew its longtime
support for the procedure, saying the benefits were not sufficient enough [sic]
to justify a recommendation.

The new guidelines said parents should decide, and laid out the benefits
and risks.

Malpractice lawyers and insurers said they didn’t know of a case similar
to the Quincy Medical Center suit.

The suit was unusual because it hinged on lack of consent, not negligence
by the doctor or hospital, said Boston malpractice lawyer David
White-Lief. [It was negligent of the hospital to proceed without consent.]

Under malpractice theory, surgery without consent is considered the same
as an assault on the patient, White-Lief said.

“Any surgical procedure requires informed consent,” he said.

At least five area hospitals – Brockton Hospital, South Shore Hospital in
Weymouth, Caritas Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton, Jordan
Hospital in Plymouth and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston – require
written consent before performing a circumcision, officials said. [None requires written consent from the patient....]

Dr. Robert Nelson, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia
and head of the bioethics committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics,
said hospital policies may vary but some form of consent is necessary
before performing circumcision.

Even if hospitals don’t use a form, doctors should get consent verbally
and document it, Nelson said.

A spokeswoman for the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists said the organization’s guidelines call for doctors to
obtain consent but don’t specify that it be written.

22. $750,000 for the tip of the glans

Tip Of Penis Amputated During CircumcisionDoctor Admits Mistake; Defense Later Questions Design Of Clamp Used

$725,000 Settlement

In June 1997, a baby boy was born to the plaintiffs. According
to all involved, the mother and minor plaintiff were healthy and in
satisfactory condition following the birth. The morning after the
birth, the minor plaintiff was taken from the mother to be circumcised.
The father did not accompany the minor plaintiff. Approximately one
hour later, the defendant doctor entered the plaintiff parents' room
and notified them that a small section at the tip of the infant's glans
penis had been inadvertently excised.

The defendant doctor further informed them that a surgeon was
on the way to perform microsurgery to reattach the amputated section.
The defendant doctor reportedly concluded by stating: "I wish I could
blame the clamp, but I can't. It was my fault."

The operative note stemming from the reattachment stated that
only a tiny section of glans penis had been amputated during the
circumcision, that no damage had been done to the child's urethra, and
that full recovery was expected.

Over the next two years, the minor plaintiff had a remarkable
healing result. Follow-up appointments with different doctors, one of
whom was a noted specialist from Children's Hospital in Boston,
confirmed that the minor plaintiff would not likely suffer any
permanent injury as a result of the circumcision mishap [...only as a result of the circumcision]. There were, however, slight cosmetic deficits at the tip of the minor plaintiff's penis, which were termed "skin tags." These skin tags were removed by laser surgery and did not reappear.

The plaintiff's expert agreed that there was only a slight
cosmetic deficit and that the urethra remained intact. He also agreed
that the child would not suffer any decreased sensation due to the
original insult [...only due to the circumcision]. He added that he could not say for certain that the plaintiff would grow to have full sensation at the tip of his penis.

As discovery progressed, the defense began to question the suitability of the Mogen clamp
used in the process. Despite the defendant doctor's admission that the
incident was his fault, the defense persisted with claims that the
Mogen clamp had a design defect, which could allow for a portion of the
glans penis to become trapped during the clamping process and
inadvertently excised. [This is an acknowledged fault of the Mogen(TM) clamp]

The plaintiffs did extensive research into the different
implements used for circumcision, and opined that the doctor failed to
make certain that only foreskin remained exposed after the clamp had
been applied. Ultimately, the case was settled with a structured
settlement, which will yield the child in excess of $750,000.

[If the tip of the glans is worth
$750,000, how much will the whole foreskins be worth when the class
action suits begin? This case illustrates how those who have a glans
and no foreskin overvalue the one and undervalue the other. An
excellent example of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.]

24. Penis lacerated (more than usually), clamp blamed

John Doe v. Doe Distribution: Plaintiff was a newborn who
was circumcised at the hospital. Unfortunately, the pediatrician
performing the procedure lacerated the organ with serious
complications. The case was brought to trial against the clamp product
distributor for manufacturing and design defects. At the trial, the
jury found that defects in the clamp contributed to the injury. The
jury awarded damages in excess of $1.5 million, which may be the
largest recovery for this type of injury reported.

29. Ruling that a 14-year-old may refuse to be circumcised

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JACKSON COUNTY

In the Matter of the Marriage of:
JAMES H. BOLDT,
Petitioner,
and
LIA BOLDT,
Respondent.

CASE NO: 98-2318-03(8)

ORDER

THIS
MATTER came before the Court for hearing on April 22, 2009, pursuant to
the remand Instructions from the Oregon Supreme Court to resolve the
factual issue of whether the Child agrees to or objects to the
circumcision that would be required to be performed on him as part of
his conversion to Judaism. The Supreme Court further instructed that if
the trial court found that the Child opposed the circumcision, it must
then determine whether the Child's opposition to the circumcision will
affect Petitioner's ability to properly care for him. If necessary, the
trial court could then determine whether it is in the Child's best
interests for the existing custody arrangement to remain in place,
whether conditions should be imposed contingent on Petitioner's
continued custody of the Child, or whether custody should be changed
from Petitioner to Respondent.

The Child was interviewed in camera
regarding his position regarding the circumdslon and religious
conversion. Trie Court also received testimony from Petitioner James
Boldt

Having considered the Child's in camera
interview, Petitioner's testimony, the arguments made by the attorneys,
the memoranda of law
submitted by the parties, the relevant statutory provisions, the
applicable caselaw, and otherwise being familiar with the issues, the
Court makes the following findings:

(1) The Child
clearly has expressed to the Court that he does not wish to be
circumcised. Further, the Child does not wish to convert to Judaism.

(2) The
Child discussed in depth his fear of returning to Petitioner's custody
once Petitioner became aware of his position regarding the circumcision
and religious conversion. Further, the Child explained to the Court
that he was so concerned about what Petitioner's reaction would be that
he was afraid to tell Petitioner his true feelings about the
circumcision and conversion,

(3) The
Child pleaded with the Court not tp send him back to
Petitioner's custody during his in camera interview. Further, the Child
stated that it was his desire to live with Respondent. It was clearly
apparent that the Child was suffering from significant emotional
anguish regarding his current living situation with Petitioner.

(4)
Although Petitioner testified that he would not force the Child to be
circumcised or to convert to Judaism against the Child's wishes, the
Court has concerns about the ongoing emotional and/or psychological
effect that the Child's decision will have on the parent-child
relationship and the Petitioner's ability to properly care for the
Child.

(5) The
Court Is satisfied that the Respondent has met her burden of
demonstrating to the Court that there has been a substantial change in
circumstances relating to the capability of one or both parents to care
for the Child. The events (Child's position regarding the circumcision
and conversion; Child's fear of returning to Petitioner's care; Child's
fear of being truthful with Petitioner regarding his position as to the
circumcision and conversion; Child's desire to live with Respondent;
and Child's obvious emotional anguish over his living situation) that
precipitated the substantial change fn circumstances were unanticipated
and have arisen since the last Court order of October 9, 2002.

Based on the
foregoing, it is the Order of the Court that this matter be set for an
evidentiary hearing to determine whether it is in the Child's best
interests for the existing custody arrangement to remain in place,
whether conditions should be Imposed contingent on Petitioner's
continued custody of the Child, or whether custody should be changed
from Petitioner to Respondent.

Further,
it is the Order of the Court that an independent Child Custody
Evaluator be appointed in this case pursuant to ORS 107.425. Attorneys
for Petitioner, Respondent, and the Child may provide the Court with a
list of at least three (3) proposed evaluators to the Court within 14
(fourteen) calendar days from the date of this Order. The Court will
then review the proposed evaluators and make a selection from the
parties' submissions.

31. Federal Law to derestrict (male) circumcision

"No
city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or
administrative action shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male
circumcision, or the exercise of a parent's authority to have a child
circumcised."

Now circumcision in California needs only one
consenting parent, a boy and a boxcutter. You can circumcise your son
with impunity because he failed his driving test - or authorize the
driving instructor or tester to carry it out.

32. Lawyers specialising in circumcision cases

There are several lawyers in the USA who spend much of their energy
pursuing cases involving circumcision (botched circumcisions,
protecting boys from unconsented circumcisions, and also premature
forcible retraction of intact boys), and they will sometimes work pro
bono (free, for the public good). They are

Zenas Baer in Hawley, Minnesota (zbaer [at] zbaer.com)

John Geisheker in Seattle (docdirector.geisheker [at] gmail.com)

David Llewellyn in Atlanta (llewhm [at] bellsouth.net)

Steven Svoboda in Berkeley, California (arc [at] post.harvard.edu) runs Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

-

33. Infant male genital cutting is already illegal:

"The Assault We Ignore", London Queen's Counsel James Chegwidden's speech at the 2013 Genital Autonomy Symposium in Keele, Staffs, UK, about how non-therapeutic infant circumcision is in breach of national and international law.

James Chegwidden QC

34. Germany - from ethical/legal to political

German Law on Circumcision and its Debate: How an Ethical and Legal Issue Turned Political

The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in
Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons. The
aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious
circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the
surrounding ethical and legal issues. We first elucidate the diversity
of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany. Next we
examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions
on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for
non‐medical reasons. To this end, the potential benefits and harms of
circumcision for non‐medical reasons are compared. We argue that
circumcision does not provide any benefits for the ‘child as a child’
and poses only risks to boys. We then set out to clarify and analyse
political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision
law. We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in
Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a
political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical
context. Although such a particular political sensibility is entirely
comprehensible, it raises particular problems when it comes to framing
and responding to medical ethical issues – as in the case of religious
circumcision.